Gordon Robinson | When in doubt, draw!

One of Gene Autry’s favourite domino mantras is “When in doubt, draw!”

He means, if given a chance to play a double, unless there’s a compelling reason to decline the offer, play it. Doubles are the most difficult to separate from your hand so you shouldn’t voluntarily retain them. In fact, playing “winners-pose” (yuck!), if you are first up, your preference should always be to pose a double. Your one reluctance should be if the pose would be “bareback” meaning the double has no numerical company.

Even bareback-double poses are permissible if no option has sufficient “backative” and your hand isn’t short any card. Otherwise, poses should be assessed as follows: A double backed by one more of its value is “poseable”. Backed by two more: “very poseable”. Backed by three more: “eminently poseable”. Ties should be decided in favour of the double whose companions have more “backative”. If still needing a tie-breaker, pose the highest counting double. If you hold five including the double try posing one of the remaining two (or one of the four supporting dominoes). Your quadruple-backed double can’t be killed and, strategically, is best played later.

Now why am I warbling on about doubles; when to play them; and when to draw? It’s because I see PNP, seemingly driven by political angst, has decided to cut its own double by suing government over the use of a constitutional amendment to circumvent another constitutional imperative.

Rest assured I’ve no intention to emulate regular media pundits by discussing the merits of a case before the court. What I will say is the unholy mess and unnecessary public cass-cass currently sucking (oops, am I allowed to use that word these days?) too much oxygen from urgently needed constitutional reform debate space is entirely Government’s fault.

The policy decision to harmonise two constitutional officers’ retirement age with new retirement ages throughout the public service, by all accounts, was made in or around 2015. At that time, there wasn’t a scintilla of disagreement. Had either the 2014/15 Government or 2016-now Government acted with average hustle this Bill would’ve been laid before Parliament in 2016, 2017 2018, or, at worst, 2019. There’d have been consultation; joint select committee; public consultation; the whole nine yards. The Bill would’ve passed in both Houses without a murmur.

But Government procrastinated. As Governments do. So, in 2020, D.P.P., because that office is constitutionally created, was faced with retirement at an age five years younger than her employees and 10 years younger than any member of the Judiciary. The office holder, if desiring to continue, was forced to humbly beg Government for an extension.

This was done.

And so the first consequence of Government’s inexcusable dawdling was felt. Thankfully, at that time, it happened behind closed doors. PNP objected strenuously to the extension that would NOT have been necessary had it or its successor Governments brought PNP’s policy on retirement ages to parliament promptly. That quarrel resulted in a three year extension.

If Government didn’t know that storms were brewing in prosecutorial teacups, they certainly knew after that 2020 kerfuffle. Still they dillied; they dallied; they rushed flawed States of Public Emergency declarations; improperly increased road traffic fines; unconstitutional NIDS; and all manner of politically sexy legislation. Still they sat on the required Constitutional retirement age Bill.

Suddenly, whilst in the midst of a comprehensive Constitutional Reform process, Government was faced with another D.P.P. Ragnarok date thanks entirely to Government incompetence and foot dragging. Faced with certain guilt for causing more embarrassment and inequity to an innocent public servant, Government finally leapt into action. Cabinet Submission; Drafting of Bill and forwarding to Parliament was accomplished in about six weeks but landed in the House on the last day for Government to cauterize its own moral responsibility to D.P.P if the term was allowed to expire due to Government neglect.

That’s what has triggered Opposition squabble; open revolt in the D.P.P’s office followed by public closing of ranks there; and general non evidence based public furore about the Officer.

At another time, we can discuss good governance reasons why these two Public Offices were constitutionally created and whether their retirement ages should matter rather than fixed terms for all constitutional offices. Instead, we must first be bored to tears by PNP’s political anxiety producing a constitutional claim which, at best, sends mixed signals regarding its regard for public servants’ security of tenure.

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com